Fehrnstrom Redux

Indeed, and that’s probably as it should be. But as we learn today from today’s column by frequent contributor and Republican strategist Eric Fehrnstrom, the Globe’s fidelity to this principle extends so far as to allow opinion writers the freedom to contradict facts that were previously established by members of the news staff.

In this column (his fourth effort in the nineteen months he’s been opining for the Globe to harpoon Elizabeth Warren, his personal Leviathan), Fehrnstrom again falsely accuses Warren of helping corporate giant Travelers Insurance to defeat claims brought by victims of asbestos poisoning. But as Globe news staffers reported on multiple occasions when Fehrnstrom was peddling this same story in his capacity as a member of Scott Brown’s campaign staff, it is so misleading as to be untrue. This same campaign lie was also called out on BMG (here and here). Nevertheless, the falsehood is back again on today’s opinion page, and Fehrnstrom goes on to use it to attack Warren for hypocrisy:

If Warren engages in the same behaviors that she pretends to find in others, she should at least be reminded of her dishonesty.

On behalf of the Globe news staff, we are happy to do the same for him.

On the other hand there are so few clever, competent writers among the Warren haters club the Globe uses Eric like they use Jeff Jacoby to provide a balance.
Actually I can think of a few good GOP
writers

All I’m asking is that you use mature vocabulary to convey those reasons. Even the Tea Party communicated their differences on policy better and for those who hated Obama just because of his race we can and should be better than they are. If you want to fight for no children to go to bed hungry as your first line implies, then make proposals and call people out who oppose them. That is what I mean by the merits, and yes commenting on motives is fair game, but again, you aren’t really fighting here. You are just “puking” words onto your keyboard to make yourself feel better, but doesn’t change a single mind, vote, or line of legislation.

…you will equate anyone that voted for Trump as traitorous Repukians, when most Trump voters aren’t crazy and only a small percentage are complete Trump sycophants…so your rhetoric is heard by those millions of Trump voters who voted for him for more being reasons. They were wrong. But calling them traitors and Repukians will just have them dig their heels in, because no one wants to be called names. You are being very short sited.

I’ve had many a letter to the editor and oped fact-checked by many a newspaper and magazine. I don’t see why the Globe shouldn’t do the same for Fernstrom’s or anyone’s opeds. There’s a huge difference between differentiating news and opinion and allowing folks on the oped page to run roughshod over the facts.

…but does that mean accepting pieces from Fehrnstrom and Jacoby (especially his climate denying drool) that are filled with untruths, omissions and out right falsehoods?

Maybe someday opinion pages will reject nonsense columns in which a house of cards argument is based on one sliver of truth, from which 600 words are used to obscure and deceive readers. Opposite opinions is one thing…opposite facts and realities are a different ball game. When will the Globe (and others) learn?